LONDON -- Well, in less than a week, it appears the British authorities got them! But what are they? The BBC last week edited out the word "terrorist" in its coverage of July 7th's subway and bus bombings in favor of the word "bombers." The BBC believed that the word would be less offensive to certain aggrieved British groups. Yes, terrorists have feelings, too. Now that the men who committed these grisly crimes appear to be Islamicists with terrorist sympathies and suicidal intent, can we call them terrorists? Can we call them Muslim terrorists? Can we call them Muslim suicide bombers and terrorists?
London was stalwart and inspiring last week. In the aftermath of the, dare I say, terrorist attacks, the Londoners went about their business, vowing to apprehend the criminals and otherwise carrying on just as they had during the war whose victory they celebrated on the weekend -- German sensibilities be damned. But the longer I am in London, the more I discover that there are unsettling undercurrents within the government and among elites. One is the application of politically correct rules to coverage of the news. Another is to outlaw free speech as it relates to the treatment of Islamofascism and the bloody consequences of Islamofascism.
One of the first concerns of some after the bombing was a concern about "backlash." Frankly, I did not know at first what the term was supposed to refer to. Was it referring to overreaction in terms of government action, say, London's exerting some sort of pressure against foreign countries that harbor terrorists? Was it referring to increased police action against the citizenry? No, it was referring to hooligans attacking Muslims, which had not happened yet and so far has not, save for a few broken windows at a mosque. That sort of thing is deplorable, but why was violence against Muslims among the first concerns of British elites? The answer is that local Muslims have orchestrated this concern.